Print Page | Close Window

New Scope

Printed From: OpticsTalk by SWFA, Inc.
Category: Scopes
Forum Name: Rifle Scopes
Forum Description: Centerfire long gun scopes
URL: http://www.opticstalk.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=22171
Printed Date: March/19/2024 at 04:06
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: New Scope
Posted By: darrel from meraux
Subject: New Scope
Date Posted: February/19/2010 at 23:05
HI, im new to this forum and also new to long range shooting. Iv been hunting all my life so im fairly knowlegable but would like some experts opinions on scopes. Iv hunted a powerline this year and told myself 300 yds would be my max but after seeing deer almost every hunt from the 400-1000yd range i got interested in what it would take to make these shots(over 300). I know scopes dont work magic and im not looking to shoot 1000yds but whats your opinions on the best long range scopes.
 
 
IV been doing my research and iv come up with these as my top choices
1) Leupold 4.5-18x56
2) swarovski z6 2.5-15x56
3) Zeiss Victory Diavari 6-24x56
4) IOR Valdada 4-14x56
 
Leupold being my top choise as the 56mm scope can be mounted as low as a 30mm scope with the new cutout design.
 
Notice all my choices are 56mm as i like to pull as much light as possible and have cleaner images.
 
Aside for a higher ring height are their any other benefits from snooting a smaller ie:40mm scope
 
 



Replies:
Posted By: Kickboxer
Date Posted: February/20/2010 at 00:21
Lower mounting is generally for personal head position purposes.  There are actually some long range advantages to a higher scope mount.  However, given the scope set you listed, I would choose, PERSONAL CHOICE, the Zeiss Victory Diavari or the Swarovski.  Far superior to the Leupold, better than the IOR.  If shots are often close range, the 2.5 lower end will serve better.  If shots are 100yards or further most of the time the Zeiss would be my choice.  

-------------
Opinion,untempered by fact,is ignorance.

There are some who do not fear death... for they are more afraid of not really living


Posted By: JDL25
Date Posted: February/20/2010 at 01:22

What are the long range advantages to having the line of sight higher than necessary? I have never read this before but would like to know. Thanks



Posted By: HOLLOWPOINT
Date Posted: February/20/2010 at 02:20
I recommend the NEW Zeiss Victory FL 6-24X56.
 
Best long range hunting scope in the world.


-------------
Independence is my happiness, and I view things as they are, without regard to place or person; my country is the world, and my religion is to do good. Thomas Paine


Posted By: lucytuma
Date Posted: February/20/2010 at 10:29
Originally posted by JDL25 JDL25 wrote:

What are the long range advantages to having the line of sight higher than necessary? I have never read this before but would like to know. Thanks

I don't beleive there are any at long range.

-------------
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." - Thomas Jefferson


Posted By: darrel from meraux
Date Posted: February/20/2010 at 11:56
Originally posted by HOLLOWPOINT HOLLOWPOINT wrote:

I recommend the NEW Zeiss Victory FL 6-24X56.
 
Best long range hunting scope in the world.
 
BUT, would it seems the 6 power would be a tad high for taking advantage of low light actual hunting senarios. Think?


Posted By: billyburl2
Date Posted: February/20/2010 at 12:30
Exit pupil is objective divided by magnification, or 56/6=9.333mm. The average eye only opens to 7mm, so the scope at the lowest power is going to let in more light than your eye  probably will. Of the scopes listed, I personally would choose the Swaro, because I like that mag range better than the Zeiss. But IMO all scopes listed are better than the Luppy, especially when bang for the buck is considered.

-------------
If it is tourist season, why can't we shoot them?


Posted By: darrel from meraux
Date Posted: February/20/2010 at 14:37

I was dead set on a 56mm scope believing i would be able to see much better in low light situations, but does the bad (high rings, heavy, awkward, etc) of a 56mm scope outweight it's "low light" benefits when a 40mm will essentially do the exact same thing on a few magnifications less and being much more comfortable.?



Posted By: lucytuma
Date Posted: February/20/2010 at 15:22
While I think there are situations and occasions where a 56mm would beneficial, for normal hunting purposes a 40-50mm is likely to be more manageable and useful, just my thoughts. 

-------------
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." - Thomas Jefferson


Posted By: Rancid Coolaid
Date Posted: February/20/2010 at 17:25
Originally posted by darrel from meraux darrel from meraux wrote:

...after seeing deer almost every hunt from the 400-1000yd range i got interested in what it would take to make these shots(over 300).
 
 


Long range hunting is usually a futile (and unnecessary) pursuit.  If you ain't good enough to gt within a few hundred yards of  your game, you just ain't good enough.

I am all for encouraging long range skills, but not at the expensive of wounded game.

Of the 4 scopes mentioned, the Zeiss is the best, followed by the Swaro, then IOR in a slightly lower tier, and the Leupold doesn't even belong on the list.

It's kinda like asking which car to buy

1.  Porsche 911 GT3 RS
2.  Ferarri 458 Italia
3.  McLaren MP4
4. Chevy Cobalt (with power steering!)

I recommend you spend some time on the range, determining your actual longest range to game.  Under perfect conditions, a 400 yard shot is fine; almost never is an 800 yard shot a good thing.


-------------
Freedom is something you take.
Respect is something you earn.
Equality is something you whine about not being given.


Posted By: De_Tomaso
Date Posted: February/21/2010 at 04:57
I would go with Swarovski and would not shoot any game past 400 yards. It is not ethical for a hunter to make a try on a game if he is not 100% certain about the kill. Over 400 yards (350m) this is rarely the case. Where I live when you wound an animal have to call a guy with a tracking dog and make a report about the incident. Generally it is not worth the trouble.

 
Back to the optics, all scopes are great but Swarovski is best all purpose hunting scope, Zeiss is more of a target shooting scope and IOR is great for the money but just not as good as Swarovski or Zeiss.

I would also be interested in Zeiss FL Diavary 4-16x50 in your place.    


Posted By: Alan Robertson
Date Posted: February/21/2010 at 05:42

Hello darrel from meraux,

Welcome to the forum. The other folks who've told you the Zeiss and Swarovski are optically superior scopes are telling it like it is, as far as my eyes can see. I recently posted results of an "eyes only" side- by- side comparison. See it here:

http://www.opticstalk.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=21541&KW=&PID=275534#275534




-------------
"Garg'n uair dhuisgear"


Posted By: bagderRed
Date Posted: February/21/2010 at 07:41
Originally posted by Kickboxer Kickboxer wrote:

There are actually some long range advantages to a higher scope mount. 
 
I have also read this in Jim Carmichel's "The Book of the Rifle."  I would recommend you look there, Carmichel is really a good read IMO.


Posted By: tjtjwdad
Date Posted: February/21/2010 at 11:18
Originally posted by Alan Robertson Alan Robertson wrote:

The other folks who've told you the Zeiss and Swarovski are optically superior scopes are telling it like it is, as far as my eyes can see.
 
I have the Zeiss Conquest, Leupold VX-3 and the Swarovski AV.  In low light, the Swarovski is clearly the winner of the three.  From there its a toss up between the VX-3 and Conquest.  For other reasons I'd pick the Conquest over the VX-3 and maybe the Swarovski line too.  I'd just have to compare the "plex" reticles, mainly contrast to see which is better.  Those Zeiss reticles are awfully dark, which is a good thing.
 
  


Posted By: scooterpilot
Date Posted: February/21/2010 at 17:53
I'm new the forum and new to scopes; however, for the last couple of weeks I've been researching as much as possible. 

As a general question, along with the Ziess Conquest, Leupold VX-4, Sarovksi AV, would the SN-3 from US Optics compare to these scopes for optics capability?

Regards,


-------------
Chuck



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net